Theory The Idea of Architectural Language: A Critical Inquiry-

Jacques Guillerme

Translation by Helene Lipstadt and Harvey Mendelsohn

In 1967, in a book lacking neither in subtlety nor erudition, virtuosity of Borromini in terms of antithesis and oxymo­
one could read that ^the analogy between architecture and ron, anastrophe, and epiphoneme;6 this despite the fact that
language has been less popular in recent years than it was the first paragraphs of his book seem to mitigate the effect
from the middle of the eighteenth century to the middle of of this rhetorical equipment (where Portoghesi states that,
the nineteenth century.’’1 Such an assertion might seem “the analogies between architecture and language have
surprising, especially as the author invokes by way of con­ often been advanced, as have those between architectura]
trast the ^importance now given to the linguistic analogy civilization and language, and attem pts have often beer)
in the interpretation of the other Fine A rts.^2 If architec­ made even to transfer linguistic terminology to architec­
ture seems to him to have escaped in large measure this tural criticism. The most authoritative conclusions of these
metaphorical treatment, that is most probably because it experiences have been, however, ambiguous and limited”).7
has been spared all kinds of bad analysis. In this matter, All the same, this work has undoubtedly done much in
the linguistic analogy is chiefly a Latin speciality. France to acclimatize the ‘linguistic' commentary on archi­
tecture, a commentary till now divorced from any serious
The confusion that reigns today in the repeated assimilation requirement for scientific rigor.
of architecture to language obliges us finally to question
the foundation of this analogy, as well as to search out its Finally, Bruno Zevi has recently commented on the fate of
origins and proper uses. Such is the object of this article.3 the ^fashion for gram m ar,w hich for ten years has per­
vaded Italian criticism. Despite the popularity enjoyed by
The semiologist Umberto Eco has seen ^architectural lan- “the studies of architectonic linguistics,” Zevi not” ， and
墨
guageMas an ^authentic linguistic system obeying the same the fact that they have produced “results which are often
rules that govern the articulation of natural languages/14 brilliant/^ they have nevertheless not been marked by Many
Followmg Eco, A. Silipo has applied a conventional defi­ resounding effectZ， since they have not ^ploughed the spe­
nition of grammar to architecture, in his words: Mconsid­ cific field of architectonic language.MAnd Zevi attributes
ering architectonic activity to be a set of operations de- this relative poverty, not without some unintended humor,
signed to establish cognitive relationships by means of to the fact that the scholars have been too concerned to
spatial realities, and (considering) the architectonic orga­ "find in architecture the ingredients and laws of verbal
nism as a structure, an instrument of communication and language.’’8
of knowledge, gramm atical analysis becomes the principal
critical instrument at the disposal of whoever seeks not I t is clear that Zevi is noting-the insufficiency, but not the
only to grasp the entire range of signification of a particular ultimate utility, of the organon so highly vaunted by Sil
spatial structure, but also to “historicize” it by going back ipo. Perhaps the most significant contribution made丨by ■
to the methodological matrices that have determined this Zevi, however, is his invoking of a “specific field” of “ar- ■
structure, and by grasping the relationships that exist chitectonic language'' within the general linguistic dom;lain. 醫
among the figurative, technological and functional elements Here he raises a factual, and scientific, criterion in the face
that make up the structure and the more general historical, of a hitherto applied and fashionable analogy. In this re­
8〇cial and economic, and artistic context to which it gard, we are entitled to inquire as to the specific mode of
refers. knowledge presupposed by ihis “la n g u a g e ,9

Grammatical analysis is thereby claimed as a universal, The antecedents of this doctrine of analogy between archi­
critical instrument for architecture. tecture and language can be traced through the last two
centuries, though they are perhaps less numerous and
Paolo Portoghesi has similarly utilized the linguistic anal­ widespread than Peter Collins leads us to believe. Among
ogy in historical writing, demonstrating, for example, the the overt statements of the eighteenth century, Collins was

* * 7
2 scarcely able to cite more than the surreptitious remark of
Germain Boffrand: “The sections of moldings and the other
parts which make up a building, are, in architecture, what
words are in a discourse.’， 10 Francesco Milizia, at the end
of the century, repeated the comparison explicitly, applying
it, however, to the materials of building themselves. He
wrote, Mthe materials in architecture are like words in dis­
course which separately have little or no effect and can be
disposed in a despicable manner; but combined with art and
expressed with a motive and agile energy are capable of
unlimited effects.” 11 J. B. Papworth a little later revived
the idea in much the same terms: ^Materials in architecture
are like words in phraseology, which, simply, have little or
no power, and may be so arranged as to excite contempt;
yet when combined with art, and expressed with energy,
they activate the mind with unbounded sway.” 12
Traditionally, architecture was associated with the art of
drawing; it then found itself beset by the influence of other
affinities and began to cultivate those specific associations
from which it would ultimately profit in the field of social
competition. Reference to language and to the forms of
literary creation, both learned and popular, was required
in the often lively debates on questions of style that grad­
ually opposed the champions of classicism to those of ra­
tionalism and eclecticism. The first of the doctrines that
linked architecture with language consequently appeared
in France, in the course of the eighteenth century, in the
writings of men of letters seeking to subsume all the arts
within a universal theoiy of expression.13
Each time it appeared, however, the analogy was employed
for no other purpose than to validate competing morpho­
logical choices by grafting on them the prestige of literary
creation.14 I t was concerned simply with making explicit
the process of combination t the constituent of every archi-
tectural project, by .relating it to a fundamental and com­
monly held knowledge of grammar. This mode of didactic
commentary thus corresponded, to some degree, to the
desire of architects to legitimize the poetics of their archi­
tectural composition. Examples of such an aspiration are
found in L»edoux who declared that ^architecture is to ma­
sonry as poetry is to belles-lettres,〇 15 and in Quatremere
it
de Quincy who supported a new aesthetic theory of the
assimilation of genres which was, by the mid-nineteenth
century, to end up as a commonplace.16 Quatremere gave
all “honor to the architect who not only hears but speaks
the language of buildings in their relation with the type
and character of institutions. . . J*17 But this kind of com­
parison was unable to sustain any marked theoretical de­
velopment. It was paramountly unscientific and analogical
In other words, following the definitions of Quatremere
himself, recourse to language appeared at first on the level
of example or illustration and not at all in term s of a con­
sistent model.
Indeed, any conception of the relations between language
and architecture which tried to assign an exact value to
language as a model for use in architectural composition
could, of course, make no headway during the prehistory
of linguistics; the development of theory within the specific
discipline of linguistics itself was an indispensable condition
if language was to serve as a model for the field of
architecture.
On the other hand, the relatively primitive nature of pre­
twentieth century attempts to make a language out of ar­
chitecture should not necessarily lead us to assume that the
succeeding and apparently more sophisticated forms of lin­
guistic theory are any more capable of legitimating the
analogy. The more or less ingenious attem pts made since
Saussure to provide theoretical underpinnings for the use
of the linguistic model demand a rare theoretical genius. A
perfect resolution of the theoretical problem would inevit­
ably require the adoption of Hjelmslev^ axiom of isomorph­
ism in which each system of signs (or of communications)
is “isomorphic” to each other,18 But of course this implies
the total lack of specificity of the structures and functions
of different expressive systems relative to the organism of
verbal language.
Lacking a satisfactory theoretical model, however, each
attem pt to assimilate architecture to language must be
judged according to the strength of its own foundation or,
better, according to its usefulness in the practice of those
who repeat it and claim its efficacy.
It is clear that there are obviously many ways of assimilat­
ing architecture to a language. One may claim, for instance,
that a rigorous comparison is possible; such a concept would
be based upon an exact similarity of structure and function
between architectural signs and the signs of 'naturar lan­
guage. The difficulty here, of course, consists in agreeing
upon the nature of an architectural sign,19 and in composing
an appropriate collection of them ~one which does not sim­
ply coincide with a group of trivial descriptive terms. The
arrogant hypothesis that sees architecture as an ^authentic
linguistic system'' in itself is in these terms obviously
untenable.
G. Morpurgo-Tagliabue, for example, noted as early as 1968
that “what this pretended architectural language lacks in
order for it to be a language is precisely the primary factor
of semiosis: the heterogeneity between the signifier and
the signified.”20 Twenty years ago, G. G. Granger had
already rejected any identification of language and art, on
the grounds that the latter in no way aimed at ^constructing
discrete linear sequences carrying information.’’21 This ob­
jection is equally valid for architecture: it is difficult to, see
how to construct a repertory of formal elements with semic
value that would function like the classic units of linguistics.
Besides, the syntax of language is powerless to model the
syntactic relationships between architectural “signs,”
which are, in any case, perceived in ways very different
from those of speech.
Here one is following closely the classic distinction made by
G. E, Lessing between narrative and presentative modes
of expression. In his Laocoon of 1766, Lessing differen­
tiated between a poetic (narrative) mode, which is pro­
gressive in its manifestation, its elements appearing in se-
quence, and a visual (presentative) mode, the elements of
which are simultaneously juxtaposed in space.22
Theoretically, one could try to construct codes of architec­
tural forms, which are distinct and even classifiable in par­
adigmatic series and which take into account the necessity
of discontinuity in the process of establishing meaning. There exist still other arguments against the theses of
Each series thus formed could be called an ''architectural linguistic analogy. Demonstrating that the plastic arts or
type.w The primary operations of this-kind of analysis are architectural work does not possess the constituent prop­
the selection of a building and its assignment to one or
several types. If these type characteristics are then linked
with certain other characteristics, such as those of function,
economy, or ritual, they evidently generate meaning in
such a way that a cultivated observer looking a t a building
belonging to his cultural universe has the ability to come
close to grasping the architects intention, or, more pre­
cisely, the intention of that particular social collectivity that
has incorporated and determined this architect. This is
demonstrated very simply by the experience of tourists
who are ignorant of the local culture and thereby misread
its artifacts.
Thus, while one cannot in any way deny that perceived
forms communicate information, it is clear th at the variety
of the systems of expectation in the domain of perception
within a given community, and even in a single individual,
makes it unfeasible to attempt to establish a comprehensive
code of architectural signs. Since the abundance and varied
charadter of the messages confuses their decipherment,
nothing is in the end advanced by the lofty claim that
architecture is message.
Other questions, however, should be raised with regard to
the problematic or architectural communication. Firstly, if
perception effectively presupposes conditions of differentia­
tion, one may wonder whether the signified elements of a
message ought to be equally differential. As Mikel Du-
frenne asks, Mis it certain that signification, when it is ana­
logical . . , implies discontinuity and is judged by paradig­
matic series? Is it certain that the need to dearly
distinguish between the signifiers in order to transmit them
distinctly implies that the signified is distinct in the same
way?w23 On its own, a doubt of this kind is enough to
scramble the equation of art and language, even if, on the
other hand, it gives comfort to efforts toward constructing
an infinitely extensible descriptive code. Privileging the
ontology of meaning is indeed a good way of demoralizing
the tacticians of communication*
erties of an articulated language is perhaps not sufficient or to Viel de Saint-Maux in the late eighteenth century who
to convince the champions of the analogism that they abuse revived this tradition: “in ancient tem ples,” he wrote,
the metaphor. It is necessary, further, to insist on the fact ^everything lends itself to analysis; everything there rep­
that the relationship of the creator to the visible work and resented symbols and mysterious ty p es/' The aorder of
to its beholders is not the same as the relationships of architecture” for Vie] was no more nor less than the “speak，
interlocutors to their language. The production and use of ing poem” of agriculture, the first economic system of man’s
a language, like its variation, imply an intersubjectivity; dominance over Nature.
they presuppose a virtual dialogue, realizable a t any mo­
ment, between subjects who, in principle, are symmetrical, Indeed, following this argument, it is possible to see that
possess the same code or the same fraction of a code, and 4*the emergency of the problem of language at the heart of
who, by virtue of this community, participate in the same architectural criticism” should no longer be considered sim­
kind of synchronic cutting of the world.24 Now, while it is ply ，as Manfredo Tafuri so nicely puts it, as “an exact
true that architectural constructions carry a considerable response to the crisis of language in modem architecture”;21
amount of information that is both available and capable of but it should also be seen, and perhaps fundamentally so,
being symbolized in various ways,25 it is difficult to see how as a response to a socio-professional crisis of identity. ■
the recipient of the architectural 'message' could find him­
self in a dialogue with a transm itter who is almost always Thus an interest in language can be related dialectically to
hypothetical. At best, one might conceive that vision, if the contemporary social conditions, which accord favor to
informed and educated by the descriptive ‘metalanguages” these analogical theses. It might be said that the success
of the building or of its representations, might be led to of the analogy between architecture and language occurs
modify the perception of the work and the understanding during critical periods of socio-professional stratification,
of the project diachronically. This is, after all, what does expressly when the task of the architect appears to be
happen in fact, and it explains why there is always some- taken over by the activity and talents of the engineers.
thing with which to rewrite the history of architecture and
every other form of cultural production. Thus the linguistic analogy arose first during the upsurge
of technological rationalism which marked the emergence
It is well known and important to note that the analogy of the first generation of polytechnicians; and again during
between architecture and language is not a thesis developed the last twenty years or so, when a crisis in the doctrine,
by linguists,26 but rather by aestheticians and architects. teaching, and practice of architecture has developed in suc­
To declare, in effect, that architecture is a language, when cessive waves.
everyone knows, however confusedly, that this “language”
sustains, and essentially can only sustain, a one-way com­ It is very clear that in this unstable course of development,
munication, is to stigmatize beyond doubt the doctrinaire the recent vogue for analogies has produced a variety of
architect as having a desire for power that cannot naturally effects that seem to serve contradictory purposes. On the
find its outlet through the modeling of material or through one hand, the assertion that architecture is a language
the social recognition that is henceforth its condition of obviously helps to shore up the image of the artist-archi-
being. One could even maintain that this doctrine of assim­ tect. It thereby prolongs the effect that had formerly beets
ilation displays, in addition, the workings of magical sought by literate architects who knew how to clothe their
thought. To claim that architecture is a language is indeed, art with the dignity accorded to the humanities. Under thij
in some way, to erect it as a rival of a Nature teeming with guise, the survival of the type is assured, as much as it car
signs and enigmas that are subordinated, definitively, to a be> in the name of its own poetic capacity, with a view
theology of the Word. Such a notion returns us to the toward preserving the architect^ place and function in tl^
ancients who proposed esoteric meanings for architecture, organizational chart of tasks and social benefits. On

4 7十
other hand, the maneuver is by nature double-edged. For, The fact is that disciplines that comment on man’s creative 25
by insistently invoking a linguistic competence—and not activity always incorporate enigmatic vocabularies, whose
only the expressiveness of natural language—the theore­ role is to represent and to mask the inexpressible. Indeed,
tician-architect clothes himself in the mantle of pure usci- it is possible that such representations are necessary to the
ence”；and this specialization gives him the hope of pre­ industry of commentary. In other words, it m ight well be
serving a place for himself in tSe “tech no_struct ure,” as an that ritualized use of such a vicious formulation (as is that
expert in social communication. In effect, this is simply of the “architecture-language” syntagm) reveals the pow-
revealed as a maneuver to resist once more the imperialism erlessness of any descriptive language to reach its goal
of the engineers.28 without stamping it with errors.30 Consequently, we are
obliged, henceforth, to embark on a new course, one that
The power of professional interests cannot, however, ex­ will try to bring descriptive languages to their unattainable
plain everything: any careful analysis must avoid a vulgar point of perfection. Then, the wholly academic comparison
economism, i.e., determinism, if it is to put into perspective of architecture and language will appear in succeeding cen­
the sequence of discursive formations in the development turies to be without object.
of the theories at issue. How can one fail to remark, from
this point of view, that the fashion for comparing architec­ Notes
ture and language follows the exhaustion of that erudite 1. Peter Collins, Changing Ideals in Modem Architecture (McGill
University Press, 1967), p. 173. 1st ed. pub. 1965.
academicism, which is contemporary with a catastrophic 2. On this m atter cf, Ren 纟 Passeron ，L’Oewvre et ies
reduction in the semantic field. We have in mind the defi­ fonctions de Vapparence (Paris: Vrin? 1962); cf. also the clever
nition given by Jost Trier, who said, Mthe group of arbitrary review ofthisbookbj^G eorgesM ounininsertedinhis/V ^rodw c-
tion d la semiologie (Paris: Editions.de Minuit, 1970).
and contingent terms, related neither etymologically, nor 3. There is no point in giving an exhaustive list of the cases that
by individual, psychological associations, which, by juxta­ illustrate the respect, as excessive as it is confused, th at is enjoyed
position, precisely cover an entire and well bounded domain today by the linguistic analogy. Wie shall confine ourselves to a
few exemplary instances. In his book, II Razionaltsmo (Milan:
of signification, constituted traditionally or scientifically by Tamburini, 1966), P. Scurati-Manzoni, wishing to grasp the very
human experience/'29 We are therefore dealing, first of all, nature of architectural activity, defines it as a ''research in a visual
with a lexical field whose composition is inseparable from language/* p. 140, In an article cited below (note 4) Umberto Eco
maintains that uevery work of architecture must be able to be
the pragmatic exercise of the architectural composition and considered as a message that—on the basis of a code—‘denotes*
which also defines the multiple conditions of such exercise. something . . . while, at the same time, ^onnoting^ something
Now, as the canonic forms of classical architecture and its else.,} The analogy is apparently extendable without difficulty to
urban planning, as Alao Rossi makes clear: 4tThe significance of
eclectic derivations have fallen into disuse and oblivion, the the permanent elements in the study of the city can be compared
lexicon of the art, the repertory of its descriptive elements, to something similar in language; tnis is particularly evident as
has shrunk considerably. It is clear that the rise of the the study o f the city presents analogies with those of linguistics,
above all with the complexity of the problems of modincation/1
linguistic disciplines, with their theory of structural rela­ Uarchitettura della citta (Padua: Marsilio, 1973), 3rd. ed., p. 14.
tionships, came at just the right moment to fill the vacuum Nor is it surprising that the predilection for metaphor reappears
in representation following upon the diminution of the clas­ in the guise of an assimilation of the urban tissue to. some kind of
writing; see on this subject, Jean-Marie Benois^s contribution to
sical vocabulary. As a result, the invasion of the language the Colloque d^sthetiaue Appliquee au Pay sage Urbain, held at
of criticism by the syntagm, architecture-language, can be Arc-et-Senans, September 1973. According to Benoist, wthe urban
seen to mark, in the first instance, the disappearance of signifier, constituted as a lacunary text, is given as tex t or poly-
semic writing and is not fixed; by which an intro-textural acces­
that about which one could no longer reasonably speak, sibility is produced for the diversity of figurative codes that are
except in term s of archaeology, and subsequently, to mark related to each other by a theory of shifters.” There the analogical
the place of something about which one does not know how figure subsides into a theory that claims its own right to determine
the causal relationships of its own objects, within its own dis-
to speak at all. . course, conceiving itself as definitively axiomatized.
4. Umberto Eco, XLinguaggio architettonico,” i)izionaWo encicZo-
26 pedivo delVarchitettuvci e deirmbatuamo, ed. Paolo Portoghesi
(Istituto Editoriale Romano, 1968 and 19G9), vol. 4.
5. A. Silipo, “Granimatica，” Diziouano enciclopedivo
delVarchitettura e delrurbanistno, vol. 3.
6. Paolo Portoghesi, Borrow//»/, architecture, langage (Paris: Vin­
cent Freal, 1969), pp. 376-378.
7. Portoghesi, Borrominit architecture, langage, p, 7.
8 . B m n o Z e v i,“L’arch itectu rem u eU ealai.ech erch e(T u n lan -
A tvhitectu ret 395, February 197G, p. 10.
9. After Zevi has emphasized that *4the true artists, ancient and
modern (are) all naturally anti-classic,” he bewails the lack of a
proper code to explain their i)roductions and, therefore, Mthe im­
possibility of elaborating a scientific criticism of architecture/1
ibid. Hence, on the one hand, one is tempted to agree with him,
but, on the other hand, his recourse to a vocabulary specific to
linguistics leads him inevitably to depend on some kind of
pataphysics.
10. Gennain Boffrand, Livre d'architecture civile . . . (Paris,
1745), p. 18.
11. Francesco Milizia, Pn)(cipi cVavchitcttura civile (Finale, 1781).
12. J. B. Papworth, Rmxtl Residences, 2nd ed., p. vii. Papworth
seems to copy Milizia vei*y closely.
13. On this point the usual reference is to Abbe Batteux, whose
doctrine is expressed in his Les Beaiu'-Atis reduits a uu weme
p^ijicipe (Paris, 1746). However, the woixls of Frangois-Hughes
d'Hancarville are perhaps of greatest significance: he was able to
"see the connection of tne figures of discoui*se with those of art,M
Avtiquites etrusques, grecquen et roma'wcHy vol. 4, 1767. But in
the relations that were eventually to be established between lit­
erature and art, the notion of stifle served increasingly as the
guiding principle. Charles-Fran^ois Viel, in his Principcs de
Tordonnance et de composition des batinioita (Paris, 1797), was
aware of the utility of this concept: *4However the word ^stvle' is
used in literature, one makes equal use of it in our present suoject.
It consists, in relation to literature, in that arrangement of words,
that disposition of phrases which render diction pure and elegant
. . . this word and its different qualities are applied with as much
truth to the other arts and singularly architecture/* p. 96. This
idea of style as mediator was destined to enjoy a lasting success.
In a recent text, N. Luning Prak declares: 4,The different styles
are different languages often as hard to understand for a modem
spectator as a foreign tongue/* The Language of Architecture
(t)en Haag, 1968), p. 15.
14. As, for instance, the way in which J. P. Schmit described the
invention of Gothic forms: uThis new artistic language, so long
awaited, appeared one day—rich, poetic, brilliant, complete; so
that its first words were masterpieces, and it only perfected itself
by becoming corrupt, as do all languages when they have attained
their perfect ion,MLes Eglises gothiques (Paris, 1837), p. 46.
15. C.-N. Ledoux, Architecture consideree sous le rappoH de
lfart, des moeurs, et de la legislation (Paris, 1804).
16. Quatremere de Quincy, Notice historique sur la vie et les
ouvmge8 de M. Gondoin, read on October 6, 1821. Cf. Notices
h\8tonque8 . . . (Paris, 1834), p. 200.
17. Indeed, this naive identification of architecture with eloquence
is no more than a commonplace. Georges Gromort gives several
examples of this doxology in his Let ires a Nicias (Paris: Vincent
Freal, 1950). Before this, writers like Alain or Paul Valery illus­
trated this topic with examples of enduring luster: one is reminded
of Alain’s famous claim for architecture as the most powerful
language without opposition (“14° legon sur les Beaux-Arts,” 18
February 1930). As for Valery, his Eupalwoa; 〇 «, Varchitecte
may be considered as a classic reference; cf. Oeuvrest vol. 2
(Edition de la Pleiade), p. 93.
18. Hjelmslev, Prolegomenaf first published in 1943 in a Danish
edition, first English translation by Whitfield, 1956.
19. On this problem one can refer to Emilio Garroni, Progetto di
semiotica (Bari: Laterza, 1972), esp. p. 83ff. In his Architettura
come lingnaggio (Florence: Gdizioni Teorema, 1974), Giuliano
Maggiora aims at overcoming the difficulties of this topic on the
grounds of his definition of the architectural sign as intended
‘“ connection’ between substantial academicians and the movement
of man," p. 126.
20. G. Morpurgo-Tagliabue, problemi di una semiologia archi-
tettonica,M Bolletthio deWIstituto Internaziomile di Studi
d'Architettura Palladio (Vicenza, 1968), X, p. 290.
21. G. G. Granger, *Tensee, logique, \BX\QSiget*y Honntiage d Gas-
ton Bachelai'd (Paris: P .U .F ., 1957), p. 35.
22. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Laocoon (Berlin, 1766), Ch. XV.
23. Mikel Dufrenne, “L’a rt est-il langage?” in cTesAdi’jMe,
XIX, 1, 1966. On this problem of the aifferentiation of the signi­
fied, one can refer also to an article by Noel Mouloud, **Le sens
de l’oeuvre et le langage de l’a rt，” dhowp/ i k
l〇 H〇phiet 81, 3, 1967; tnere, Mouloud envisages a theoretical field
free from the rhetorical procedures of an articulated language; for
it would lead in his view to Ma layer of symbolic representations
. . . underlying language,Mso that we could approach '*the source
of aesthetic language where the signifier ana the signified cease
to be distinguished in the domain of the 4pure imager.MThen 4<art
would not have to speak to us metaphorically or by stylistic
clauses**; it would be 4<the symbol which speaks by itself/5 p. 128.
So be it. However, is this not to forget that art depends on a
principle of reality for its materialization and subsequently that
a form cannot spontaneously give up its whole significance?
24. B. L.Whorf,iMnguage, Thought, and Reality (New York, 1958).
25. Viel de Saint-Maux, Prem ier lettre stir Varchitecture (Brus­
sels, 1779), pp. 16-17.
26. It is known, however, th at Saussure could be held equally
responsible for some confusion on this topic: I allude to the famous
passage in the Cours de linguistique generate where he wrote
that 4<a linguistic unit is similar to a determined part of a building/1
p. 171. In nis book, Garroni makes it clear how erroneous it could
be to maintain 'this analogy and that Saussure cannot be held
accountable for it. Garroni, Progetto di semiotica, p. 84.
21. M. Tafurir Teoria e storia delVarchitettura (Bari: 1970).
28. In addition, one must take into account the ability tQ form
specific strata within the whole of the profession; the emblems of
a sort of *,8cienceMare necessary for innovative reproduction.
29. Georges Mounin, Lea problemes theoriques de la traduction
(Paris: Gallimard, 1963), p. 72.
30. Likewise, each true proposition is settled by at least one that
is false: “every description leads to false consequences,”
Regnier， “Linguistique et methodologie，” LW owwe d Za 8〇ci祕 ，
37-38, December 1975, pp. 215ff.